IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31368 of 2009(R)
1. MARIAMMA SUNNY,D/O.LATEG.EAPEN SUNNY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.J. CHACKO, THOTTATHIL PUTHENVEEDU,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :04/11/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.31368 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Basant, J.
Against the petitioner, the respondent/her husband has filed an
Original Petition for divorce before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. She
has now received notice to appear before the Court on 18.11.2009.
According to the petitioner, she is employed abroad at Malaysia and it
is impossible for her to be physically present before the Family Court
on 18.11.2009. In these circumstances, she is making arrangements
to appear before that court through a power of attorney holder to
appear through counsel and contest the proceedings. But before so
appearing before the court and making that request to the court, the
petitioner has come running to this Court apprehending adverse orders
on 18.11.2009.
2. What is her apprehension? Why has she not waited for the
court to pass appropriate orders on 18.11.2009? According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner will not be able to
appear in person before the Family Court, till May, 2010. Such a
request is unlikely to be accepted by the learned Judge considering the
past experience of the counsel in that court. This is the short reason
W.P.(C)No.31368/09 -2-
to explain the conduct of the petitioner running to this Court with this
petition.
3. We do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. We will not
assume that the Family Court would be unreasonable and will not pass
appropriate orders when a representation is made about the physical
inability of the petitioner employed abroad to appear before that Court
on 18.11.2009.. The petitioner must make appropriate application.
The Family Court must certainly consider such application and pass fair,
reasonable and just orders on such application. We will not lightly
assume that such orders will not be passed. We are in these
circumstances satisfied that no specific directions are necessary in this
Writ Petition now. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any
such order, the option of the petitioner to come before this Court later,
shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Writ Petition.
4. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
5. Hand over copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn